1. Autistic people like to base our positions and decisions on data.

2. We’re into justice, and fairness.

3. And logic (which is, I feel, a good strategy for bringing about more fairness).

4. We're not comfortable trusting reassurances without evidence.

5. We like clarity. Lack of clarity can make us anxious.

6. We think probabilistically / statistically.

⬇️

7. We can be a bit like pattern-seeking missiles.

8. When new evidence comes to light, we’re generally adaptable – even if it takes a minute.

9. That said, we may dig in our heels about things (like change) when we’re anxious or scared.

10. We like gathering data, and interactions that are a true exchange of information.

But none of this amounts to cognitive rigidity or ‘black and white’ thinking 🤔

⬇️

Probability patterns (based upon data) are many shades of grey.

Not black or white.

I’m starting to think the ‘rigidity’ thing may be down to a misunderstanding?

I’m sometimes told I’m being ‘black and white’ when I point at a logical inconsistency in someone’s reasoning.

I don’t want to be annoying, but I like clarity in parameters and definitions… or else (stands to reason) we’ll never see each other’s points of view!

And, sometimes, people don’t like this 🤨

⬇️

Ok, I can see why school management doesn’t like it – e.g. in a public consultation when they’re pushing through a policy that goes against the kids and parents, while justifying it with arguments that are a) logically inconsistent, and b) funnily, involve them taking no responsibility.

I’m also told I’m bad at ‘just trusting’ – that I’m suspicious.

“But,” I protest, “it’s just that I like evidence. Um – where’s the data, please?”

⬇️

#Data #Clarity #ActuallyAutistic

Zooming in here…

And dividing this into 4 strands (I know: very autistic 😊 ):

1. Clarity vs rigidity;
2. Probabilistic vs local thinking;
3. Cognitive vs social uncertainty;
4. Are we right not to ‘just trust’?

And addressing them one by one:

⬇️

1: Clarity vs rigidity.

Clarity is about:
- Explicit parameters
- Defined variables
- Stated assumptions
- Predictable processes

Rigidity is about:
- Refusal to update
- Low tolerance for model revision
- Over-attachment to a rule regardless of new evidence

A probabilistic thinker can be extremely non-rigid, while still demanding clarity.

In fact, probability thinking requires flexibility.

You constantly update priors when new data arrives. That’s Bayesian, not rigid 🥰

⬇️

2: Probability thinking and autism.

There’s growing discussion in cognitive science that many autistic people:
- Prefer system-level pattern detection
- Track contingencies more explicitly
- Think in conditional structures (“if X, then Y”)
- Notice statistical irregularities

That isn’t black-and-white thinking.
That’s model-based reasoning.

If anything, it can tolerate uncertainty better, because uncertainty is explicitly modeled rather than socially smoothed over.

⬇️

3: Conceptual vs social uncertainty.

Many autistic people seem to tolerate:
- Conceptual ambiguity
- Abstract uncertainty
- Complex models
- Open-ended questions

But we do struggle with:
- Unstated social rules
- Hidden expectations
- Implicit hierarchy shifts
- Unpredictable human behavior

So the discomfort isn’t with uncertainty per se. It’s with unmodeled variables.

Which ties in with discomfort with social reassurance, e.g. with trusting “everything will be fine.”

⬇️

4: Are we right not to ‘just trust’?

Many neurotypical social systems run on:
- Emotional smoothing
- Implicit trust
- Status-based reassurance
- Norm enforcement through vibe rather than data

If you’ve repeatedly experienced (and many autistic people have; refs at the end):
- Broken promises
- Social insecurity and unpredictability
- Rule inconsistencies and injustices

Then vague reassurance doesn’t reduce uncertainty – it increases it!

⬇️